|
Easily Publish Gorgeous Magazines with Scoop.it.
Catch attention on what matters by curating content on your favorite topic. |
See How |
|
J Johnson shared this post on WordPress. (February 1, 8:03 PM) |
Tobacco Harm Reduction
Speaking of the devil, as I do, the down-side of this acquisition is that it will enable the pro-death wing of the anti-smoking movement to portray those of us who favour a market-driven shift towards low/zero-risk nicotine products as being stooges of Big Baccy. But since they do that already and always will, it's probably best to ignore their squealing and get on with doing what they have never done, ie. providing realistic alternatives for people who like nicotine but who want to quit smoking, while leaving the rest of us alone. 
In the absence of rational FDA regulation, nicotine-addicted smokers should quit cigarettes and avail themselves of the many smoke-free harm reduction products that are currently on the market. The roster of highly credible research and policy experts endorsing tobacco harm reduction continues to grow, providing more science-based support for smokers to switch. The FDA should abandon regulatory fundamentalism that condemns safer product development to a purgatory of red tape. 
But if it flunks so many tests, why does Sweden have the lowest smoking rate in Europe? Firstly, because the criteria used by the anti-smoking movement in its scorecard do not reflect best practice, but merely reflect the obsessions of its leadership, such as the belief that smoking bans lead to mass abstinence and that massive, gruesome warnings succeed where simple, evidence-based warnings fail. Neither of these articles of faith stands up against the facts and - crucially - there is no correlation between high Tobacco Control Scale scores and low smoking rates. In other words, when it comes to reducing the smoking rate - the only measure that counts - the orthodox tobacco-control model simply does not work. 
Helping smokers avoid risks is a legitimate goal of tobacco control. But the movement has morphed into an anti-tobacco crusade intent on demonizing both tobacco users and the industry supplying them. This blog examines ... Allow us to point you toward documentation of the decrease in smoking and smoking-related diseases in countries that permit and promote smokeless tobacco products such as snus (finely milled tobacco contained in small sachets that are inserted between the lip and the gum), which suggests that this type of product may actually help smokers quit. Would-be quitters have also reported significant success with the electronic cigarette, which allows them to inhale a dose of nicotine without the carcinogenic products of tobacco combustion. Unfortunately, ACSH advisor Dr. Brad Rodu's 2011 study in the Harm Reduction Journal reported that smokers remain largely misinformed about the relative safety of these products compared to cigarettes. 
Tobacco harm reduction will only succeed when smokers and their physicians are educated about snus and other cigarette alternatives. Although awareness among Norwegian doctors is not optimal, it should be sufficient to reduce cigarette consumption in that country. 
CASAA: British doc tells truth about e-cigarettes http://t.co/NB2O3HzL via @addthis... Where the editorial argues that certain dissolvable smokeless tobacco products have “a youthful appeal,” Dr. Ross counters that these products are certainly not marketed to children. Even if these products are flavored, the taste of tobacco would render them unappealing to children, he points out. “This is in contrast to the flavored FDA-approved nicotine lozenges, which actually have more nicotine than dissolvable tobacco products do. And most importantly,” he observes, “these arguments ignore the important potential of certain modern smokeless tobacco products, such as snus and dissolvables, to help smokers quit.” “Wouldn’t it be nice,” ACSH’s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan asks, “if these patients had a spectrum of smokeless products, which are both effective and at least 90 percent less harmful than cigarettes, to choose from?” ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross agrees. “It’s absurd that we’re recognizing the benefits of harm reduction for IV drug addicts, but we won’t acknowledge how much it would help people who can’t quit smoking even after a cancer diagnosis.” 
Your editorial "The 'other' tobacco tax" (Jan. 19) is based on either a basic misunderstanding of how sin taxes are meant to work or a failure to appreciate that cigarettes are by far the most dangerous form of tobacco use. 
With the cheapest packet of cigarettes now costing about $13, there is a growing trend towards swapping cigarettes for the cheaper electronic version. |
As I mentioned recently, Peto was not alone in seeing the harm reduction potential of snus. In 1985, the addiction expert M.A.H. Russell published a letter in the Lancet, estimating that 49,000 premature deaths would be prevented by a switch from cigarettes to Skoal Bandits. Unfortunately, and not for the last time, the voices of scientists were drowned out by those of activists who were itching for prohibition. 
Separating nicotine from cigarettes and smoking could open new doors for tobacco.By Lou Maiellano.Imagine a natural ingredient so promising and intriguing that... 
What is the ethical position of the legislator or campaigner seeking to ban a potential harm reduction product? Impossible to defend in my view. In doing so, they are denying an option to reduce harm, and so may be causing more harm and possibly premature death through their actions. Pressing for a ban on these products is a quite an abusive thing for one person to do to another. Consider that nicotine is addictive and smoking is hard for many to give up – quit rates are 2-3% of smokers per year and disproportionately concentrated in the better off smokers. Those insisting on a ban are deliberately denying access to an option that is used to substitute for cigarettes and reduces risk as a result. If there are health benefits from this switch – and there are and they are significant – the the legislators are deliberately closing a potentially life saving alternative pathway to a smoking. 
It’s not right to assume that all models and makes of Electronic Cigarettes are prone to this type of thing happening. We always tell our customers to replace their batteries often and do not use them outside of their intended use. We take great pride in educating the customers about the product, so they know how it works and how to take care of it. The electronic cigarette has been under fire for the last few years by the FDA and other anti-smoking organizations, that this article seems to have gained extra momentum. I firmly believe the Electronic Cigarette is a safer and smarter choice when compared to smoking tobacco cigarettes, let’s not forget the fact that approximately 138 people will die today in the USA alone from smoking related illnesses. That is a staggering number and could easily be avoided if smokers everywhere could make the switch to the Electronic Cigarette.
We find it odd that legislators crusading against the scourge of tobacco are taking aim at products that don't burn... And of course, true to form, Dr. Ross points out that while the authors of the study found what many would consider a “high quit rate” — between 22 and 25 percent — this rate is still unacceptably low. “When rates like this are actually considered high, it becomes clear that public health officials need to consider other options for cutting down on smoking in this country, particularly the potential of tobacco harm reduction,” he says. 
The FDA Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) held a public hearing January 18-20 on dissolvable smokeless tobacco products. The information gleaned there will help inform a congressionally mandated report on the subject, due March 23. The proceedings (agenda here) underscored the dearth of information on dissolvable tobacco use. Committee members repeatedly observed that there is no reliable data on who uses these products and in what context. Are dissolvables temporary or permanent substitutes for cigarettes? Do they promote tobacco initiation among teenagers? 
Your recent editorial endorsed a tax increase on tobacco products other than cigarettes, but it was based on some sweeping statements that are not scientifically accurate or credible ("The 'other' tobacco tax," Jan 20). 
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  |
5 |
|
Next |
